Charles Ortel Lobs the First of 40 Bombs at the Clinton Foundation

And does not address any of the items brought up by Mr. Ortel. I've been following his work for quite some time now and he has gone to
extensive lengths to produce his report.

Expect either a smear campaign of Mr. Ortel, the end of his life by 'natural causes,' another happening of a distractive nature (and to distract from
this, it will be a doozey), or some combination of these.

Blind sycophantic followers like the two (so far) in this thread will doom our country and smile the whole time because they've drunk the koolaid and
are wearing the same clothes the empress dons.

And does not address any of the items brought up by Mr. Ortel. I've been following his work for quite some time now and he has gone to
extensive lengths to produce his report.

Expect either a smear campaign of Mr. Ortel, the end of his life by 'natural causes,' another happening of a distractive nature (and to distract from
this, it will be a doozey), or some combination of these.

Blind sycophantic followers like the two (so far) in this thread will doom our country and smile the whole time because they've drunk the koolaid and
are wearing the same clothes the empress dons.

... er ... did you have anything to say about Ortel's claims about the Clinton foundation?

I am neither blind nor sycophantic. This country is not doomed, and your post is packed full of right-wing cliches.

Did I state that the Clinton Foundation is innocent of these charges? No.

Did I state that Hillary Clinton is innocent? No.

All I stated is the fact that these claims need factual review.

Someone has drunk the Kool-Aid here ... but it isn't me.

Want to dig into the claims? Or are you good to post the standard patter?

Ooops ... didn't get far into Mr. Ortel's report before finding a considerable problem with his presentation ...

From page one of the letter:

No attempt has been made to verify the accuracy of underlying source material; however, every reasonable effort has been made to direct readers to
public filings and other documents evaluated and mentioned in the First Foundation Report, the Second Foundation Report, and these Exhibits.

So, selected items from public filings have been imported into this report, couched in fairly dramatic language (at least in the introduction) and no
effort has been made to verify the factual nature of the primary materials used?

Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent
on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said. We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated
that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported
expenses.

We so want to know the truth, but I have strong doubts Mr. Ortel is the harbinger. He seems more like a part of the smoke-generation machinery.
That's my opinion, however, and honestly, I don't have time to sift through the muck to see what, if anything, he says "sticks."

- AB

I would like to remind everyone that this document is just an outline of his findings. he will supposedly release proof in further updates of these
accusations. I will reserve my judgement until I see it.

However, AboveBoard, you really take the cake.

You take the time to outline how this is some nefarious plot by Ortel and anti Clinton people to blow smoke, but then you admit that you can't be
bothered to read his evidence.

How dare you accuse other people of falling for someone blowing smoke when you admit you can't even be bothered to read the evidence!

and while we're at it, the Clinton Global Initiative letter of determination ...
Link

and as for the apparent lie that the Foundation is not independently audited ...

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) prepared the original and amended returns for 2013 and the 2014 Forms 990 and 990T. PwC also performed the independent
audit of the Foundation’s consolidated financial statement for 2014 which includes the accounts and activities of the Clinton Health Access
Initiative (CHAI).

And does not address any of the items brought up by Mr. Ortel. I've been following his work for quite some time now and he has gone to
extensive lengths to produce his report.

Expect either a smear campaign of Mr. Ortel, the end of his life by 'natural causes,' another happening of a distractive nature (and to distract from
this, it will be a doozey), or some combination of these.

Blind sycophantic followers like the two (so far) in this thread will doom our country and smile the whole time because they've drunk the koolaid and
are wearing the same clothes the empress dons.

... er ... did you have anything to say about Ortel's claims about the Clinton foundation?

I am neither blind nor sycophantic. This country is not doomed, and your post is packed full of right-wing cliches.

Did I state that the Clinton Foundation is innocent of these charges? No.

Did I state that Hillary Clinton is innocent? No.

All I stated is the fact that these claims need factual review.

Someone has drunk the Kool-Aid here ... but it isn't me.

Want to dig into the claims? Or are you good to post the standard patter?

So let's wait and read the detail contained in the 40 instalments to come, shall we?

Based on your following few posts, it seems that you will be taking the "debunker" approach, as opposed to detachedly reviewing and considering the
information presented - and then drawing conclusions as to the veracity of individual items presented, and the work overall.

Look, I appreciate that this could be a real scandal, and have real juicy facts to back it up. It's just that I doubt it highly based on the patterns
I've seen in the past during elections.

The pattern is real, and the allegations often go up in the very smoke they hope to demonstrate is a fire. Did anything come of Trump's Birther
attacks and his "investigators" he sent up to Hawaii (and where were all the die-hard Birthers when Ted Cruz was a possible candidate?)? This is
another example of "smoke blowing." Did anything come out of Whitewater? No, the Clintons were exonerated. This list goes on endlessly.

Sorry you don't like my take on it. It probably should have gone in the Rant forum as I am sick up to my eyeballs with this whole election cycle, and
frankly, terrified of Trump, so forgive me for having my own bias to look through.

I don't think Clinton is a pure and shiny Saint. I do think there is a lot of manufactured BS being thrown at her. I have a lot of respect for the
OP, and I hope they will do due diligence in their investigation of the allegations summarized.

I SUSPECT this of happening, though I am not accusing anyone here of doing that. The "evidence" must indeed be properly reviewed.

What was I thinking??? I guess Kerry was never Swiftboated by Bossie then, too...and Bossie never was fired for making up crap in his
"investigations" of the Clintons, and it's all just confusion on my part. And Ortel couldn't possibly be doing something like that during a heated
election where the only solid hope the right's candidate has is to make their opponent look significantly worse than him, which is kind of a big
job...

This is a conspiracy site, my friend. My tin foil hat is firmly on, thank you. As I mentioned though, and my apologies to the OP, whom I respect
greatly, this probably should have gone in the Rant forum...

a reply to: AboveBoard
I too have biases, we all do. I am sick of hearing unfounded attacks on both candidates such as who does the KKK like more. But I am still willing
to look at facts as they come out, even if they go against my bias.

It is tiresome, but if I am going to have an opinion, I would like it to be as informed as possible.

Can you dispute the facts I provided that put the lie to Ortel's claims in his "summary introduction"?

That'd be the place to start ... unless you're categorizing yourself under "right wing bias."

The Clinton Foundation IS recognized as a charitable organization.

The Clinton Foundation IS independently audited.

Two LIES and we're not off the first page?

/shrug

1) I believe that his assertion is that the Clinton Foundation does not pass either the "organizational test" or the "operations test", as a
charitable foundation - and thus should not be recognized as a charitable organization...that it currently is recognized is not in dispute, I
think.

Determined review of these 40 Exhibits that deal primarily with the period 23 October 1997 (when the Clinton Foundation was organized) through
2011 (when attempts to re-organize the Clinton Foundation were most active) demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the Clinton Charity Network was
neither organized nor operated lawfully.

As the following IRS publication states clearly, a nonprofit corporation must pass both an “organizational test” and an “operational test” to
be legitimately exempt from federal income taxes. “The Dual Test: Organized and Operated 1. IRC 501(c)(3) requires an organization to be both
"organized" and "operated" exclusively for one or more IRC 501(c)(3) purposes. If the organization fails either the organizational test or the
operational test, it is not exempt. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)–1(a)(1). 2. The organizational test concerns the organization’s articles of organization or
comparable governing document. The operational test concerns the organization’s activities. A deficiency in an organization’s governing document
cannot be cured by the organization’s actual operations. Likewise, an organization whose activities are not within the statute will not qualify for
exemption by virtue of a well written charter. Reg. 1.501(c)(3)–1(b)(1)(iv).”

He claims that this will become obvious, after reading the 40 instalments to follow.

2) He states:

Though required by strict laws, no part of the Clinton Charity Network (including affiliates and joint ventures) has ever procured a
comprehensive, independent, and compliant audit of its financial results.

The fact that the Clinton Foundation has an auditor, does not necessarily preclude the possibility that this Firm did not conduct comprehensive
forensic audits of the Foundation and all of its affiliates (many of which are located in foreign jurisdictions). In addition, a standard audit only
tests an organization's financial record keeping system, and does random verification of source documents.

A standard audit is not "forensic" in nature...one intended to actively look for fraud, hidden books, the truthfulness of source documents coming from
3rd Party entities, etc.

Again, I believe that his claim is that the Clinton Foundation is a multinational criminal enterprise that uses a web of Companies and so-called
Charitable organizations around the world, designed to hide its true nature and activities - and to help to cover up its criminal actions.

Let's wait and see if he has the facts to back up these very serious charges...

So ... it is Ortel's OPINION that the Foundation doesn't meet the criteria and his OPINION (put to the lie with facts) that there hasn't been an
independent audit? That's just not what he stated.

A forensic audit? Are you saying that it is standard business procedure to conduct an annual forensic audit? Are you intentionally moving the
goalposts?

Correct, it is Ortel's opinion (or the conclusion he has personally reached). Whether or not others...including you and I...reach the same
conclusions will depend on the evidence yet to be presented, and our personal interpretations of same.

No, it is not standard business practice...that would be far too expensive and time consuming. It would only be warranted if/when there was some
indication that something was amiss...which can sometimes be indicated by something that you come across in a normal audit (funds seeming to be
missing for example), or as a result of a whistle blower's report, or arising from the findings of an independent investigator (like a journalist).

Assuming (for sake of argument) that 10-15% of what Ortel says is true on the face of it (from examination of the public records presented), then a
full blown forensic audit, followed by an investigation by the IRS and the FBI would certainly be warranted.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.